USPTO Patents Application 10721630

III. REMARKS

Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending in this application. By this amendment, claims 1, 7 and
14 have been amended. Applicant is not conceding in this application that those claims are not
patentable over the art cited by the Office, as the present claim amendments and cancellations are
only for facilitating expeditious prosecution of the allowable subject matter noted by the Office.
Applicant does not acquiesce in the correctness of the rejections and reserves the right to present
specific arguments regarding any rejected claims not specifically addressed. Further, Applicant
reserves the right to pursue the full scope of the subject matter of the original claims in a
subsequent patent application that claims priority to the instant application. Reconsideration in
view of the following remarks is respectfully requested.

In the Office Action, claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected as allegedly being directed to
nonstatutory subject matter. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
allegedly being anticipated by Cappellucci et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0039949 Al),
hereinafter "Cappellucci."

With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 6, Applicants respectfully
submit that the claims do, in fact, have a tangible effect. Namely, the claims result in an
information rollup process being performed. The Office states that the focus is on whether the
final result achieved by the invention is useful, tangible and concrete. Applicants submit that the
final result achieved by claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are all of the above. At the end of the process
claimed in those claims, information will have been rolled up the hierarchical tree, i.e., when a
state of a certain learning competency for a learning object changes, that information is
communicated up the corresponding branches of the tree so that the change is made to all

10/721,630

Page 8 of 11

necessary nodes. This results in the useful, tangible, and concrete result of providing a
hierarchical tree with consistent and updated information. As such, Applicants respectfully
request that this rejection be withdrawn.

With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20, Applicants
respectfully submit that Cappellucci fails to teach each and every element of the claimed
invention. Specifically, Cappellucci fails to teach or disclose performing an information rollup
as claimed by the claimed invention.

Interpreting Cappellucci for purposes of this response only, Applicants submit that
Cappellucci teaches a method for correlating information within a system that derives
information from a plurality of disparate informational resources. Para. [0021]. The Office
attempts to equate this "correlation query" of Cappellucci with the information rollup of the
claimed invention. Office Action, p. 3. However, these two processes cannot be equated.
Cappellucci's correlation system simply allows a user to search to find information objects and
elements that are correlated against a particular information object or element. As admitted by
the Office, Cappellucci's system performs a "correlation query, a process to find those
information objects and elements that are correlated against a particular information object or
element." Id. In contrast, the claimed invention claims the performance of an information
rollup; i.e., a communication of a change in state of a learning competency to the appropriate
node. Cappellucci's correlation of data simply establishes a link or relationship between the
information object or element and the MLO {see Abstract). Cappeulluci does not communicate
changes up a hierarchical tree as claimed in the claimed invention. As such, Cappellucci's
correlation query cannot be equivalent to performing an information rollup as claimed in the

10/721,630

Page 9 of 1 1

claimed invention. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Applicants respectfully request
that the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 be withdrawn.

Furthermore, Cappellucci does not disclose the generation of a control block to determine
which child nodes must be rolled up before the parent can be rolled up. In contrast, the claimed
invention generates a control block for each of the child and parent nodes which ensures that the
rollup of the child nodes must be performed before the information rollup of the parent node. In
the Office Action, the Office equates this generation of a control block with Cappellucci 's
population of a data base with meta data which is performed when information resources are
input into the system. Office Action, p. 4 quoting Cappellucci paragraphs [0076]-[0077]. As
those paragraphs indicate, the meta-data in Cappellucci is used to correlate the information
objects and elements of the information resources to the master learning objectives (MLOs).
Cappellucci's system allows a user to search for information, for example state standards,
correlated to a lesson plan. The system first searches for correlated data for the child MLOs, then
the sibling MLOs and then the parent MLOs. But this system does not provide a logic system
where child nodes are rolled up before a parent node to avoid repeated rollups. Accordingly, for
the reasons set forth above, Applicants respectfully request that the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-
20 be withdrawn.

With regard to the Office's other arguments regarding dependent claims, Applicant herein
incorporates the arguments presented above with respect to independent claims listed above. In
addition, Applicant submits that all dependant claims are allowable based on their own distinct
features. However, for brevity, Applicant will forego addressing each of these rejections

10/721,630

Page 10 of 11

individually, but reserves the right to do so should it become necessary. Accordingly, Applicant
respectfully requests that the Office withdraw its rejection.

IV. CONCLUSION

In addition to the above arguments, Applicants submit that each of the pending claims is
patentable for one or more additional unique features. To this extent, Applicants do not
acquiesce to the Office's interpretation of the claimed subject matter or the references used in
rejecting the claimed subject matter. Additionally, Applicants do not acquiesce to the Office's
combinations and modifications of the various references or the motives cited for such
combinations and modifications. These features and the appropriateness of the Office's
combinations and modifications have not been separately addressed herein for brevity. However,
Applicants reserve the right to present such arguments in a later response should one be
necessary.

In light of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that all claims are in condition for
allowance. Should the Examiner require anything further to place the application in better
condition for allowance, the Examiner is invited to contact Applicant's undersigned
representative at the number listed below.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: February 26, 2008 /Meghan Q. Toner/

Meghan Q. Toner
Reg. No.: 52,142

Hoffman, Warnick & D'Alessandro LLC
75 State Street, 14 th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
(518) 449-0044
(518) 449-0047 (fax)

10/721,630 Page 11 of 11